Karnataka High Court
North West Karnataka Road vs M/S. Sesa Gova Limited on 5 December, 2023
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
MFA No. 23362 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 24018 of 2011
MFA No. 21686 of 2012
MFA No. 22147 of 2012
MFA No. 25492 of 2012
MFA No. 22189 of 2013
MFA No. 22841 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA R
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23362/2012(MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24018/2011(MV)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.21686/2012(MV)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22147/2012(MV)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.25492/2012(MV)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22189/2013(MV)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22841/2013(MV)
IN MFA.NO.23362/2012:
BETWEEN:
NORTH - WEST KARNATAKA TRANSPORT,
CORPORATION GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL
Digitally CONTROLLER, GADAG DIVISION,
signed by HUBBALLI ROAD, GADAG,
BHARATHI BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, HUBBALLI.
HM
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MRS. V. V. G. N. PRASAD GUPTA
D/O. SATYANARAYAN,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
DOOR NO.13/92, MAIN ROAD,
R/O.CHAGALAMARRI (P AND M)
DIST: KARNOOL.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
MFA No. 23362 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 24018 of 2011
MFA No. 21686 of 2012
MFA No. 22147 of 2012
MFA No. 25492 of 2012
MFA No. 22189 of 2013
MFA No. 22841 of 2013
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KARNOOL BRANCH,
INSURER OF THE LORRY.
3. CHALLE LAXMI RADDI
S/O. MUNI REDDI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCCP: DRIVER OF THE LORRY,
R/O: CHINTAKUNTA, DEVUR (A.P.).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 07.01.2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED FAST TRACK
COURT AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL GADAG, IN MVC NO.90/2004 AND ETC.,
IN MFA.NO.24018/2011:
BETWEEN:
NORTH - WEST KARNATAKA TRANSPORT,
CORPORATION, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD, REPTD. BY ITS DIVISIONAL
CONTROLLER, GADAG DIVISION, GADAG,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
N.W.K.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBBALLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.C.BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VIJAY S/O. DAVALAPPA DODDAMANI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: WALVEKAR HAKKAL,
BANKAPUR CHAWL,
P.B.ROAD, GADAG, DIST: GADAG.
(OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGN.
NO.KA-25/B-1807).
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
MFA No. 23362 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 24018 of 2011
MFA No. 21686 of 2012
MFA No. 22147 of 2012
MFA No. 25492 of 2012
MFA No. 22189 of 2013
MFA No. 22841 of 2013
2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO, LTD.,
OPP. KITTLE COLLEGE,
P.B.ROAD, DHARWAD,
(POLICY NO.670700/31/5/02538)
VALID FROM:3.6.2005 TO 2.6.2006)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N.R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK COURT AND ADDITIONAL
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNA, GADAG, IN MVC NO.367/2006
DATED 07.02.2011 AND ETC.,
IN MFA.NO.21686/2012:
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KARNOOL BRANCH,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO., LTD., IST FLOOR,
ANKOLA ARCADE,
OPP: KALABHAVAN, DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NORTH - WEST KARNATAKA TRANSPORT,
CORPORATION, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL
CONTROLLER, GADAG DIVISION, GADAG.
2. MRS. V. V. G. N. PRASAD GUPTA
D/O. SATYANARAYAN,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
MFA No. 23362 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 24018 of 2011
MFA No. 21686 of 2012
MFA No. 22147 of 2012
MFA No. 25492 of 2012
MFA No. 22189 of 2013
MFA No. 22841 of 2013
DOOR NO.13/92, MAIN ROAD,
R/O.CHAGALAMARRI (P AND M)
DIST: KARNOOL.
3. CHALLE LAXMI RADDI S/O. MUNI REDDI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCCP: DRIVER,
R/O: CHINTAKUNTA, DEVUR (A.P.),
(DRIVER OF THE LORRY NO.ATQ 7223).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
CONNECTED WITH MVC NO.90/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST
TRACK COURT AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, AT GADAG, EXAMINE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE
AWARD DATED 07.01.2012 AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND ETC.,
IN MFA.NO.22147/2012:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
SUJATHA COMPLEX, P.B.ROAD,
HUBBALLI BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, SUJATHA COMPLEX,
P. B. ROAD, HUBBALLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.Y.KATAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NORTH - WEST KARNATAKA TRANSPORT,
CORPORATION, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
GADAG, DIVISION GADAG SHRI S.K.HALLI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.W.K.R.T.C., GADAG,
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
MFA No. 23362 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 24018 of 2011
MFA No. 21686 of 2012
MFA No. 22147 of 2012
MFA No. 25492 of 2012
MFA No. 22189 of 2013
MFA No. 22841 of 2013
2. MRS. RAJAM MARIMUTHU S/O MR. MARIMUTHU,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 23, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, N.T.PET
(NEW TARAGUPET, BANGALURU)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.M.KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
APPELA DISMISSED AS AGAINS R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.02.2012 PASSED BY THE FAST
TRACK COURT AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, GADAG, IN MVC NO.230/2006 AND ETC.,
IN MFA.NO.25492/2012:
BETWEEN:
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, MOTOR THIRD PARTY HUB
OFFICE, SRINATH COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR,
NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI - 580 029,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI R.R.MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NORTH - WEST KARNATAKA ROAD
TRANSPORT, HUBBALLI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
DIVISION GADAG.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.C.BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 02.05.2012 PASSED BY THE COURT OF DISTRICT
JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GADAG, IN MVC
NO.109/2009 AND ETC.,
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
MFA No. 23362 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 24018 of 2011
MFA No. 21686 of 2012
MFA No. 22147 of 2012
MFA No. 25492 of 2012
MFA No. 22189 of 2013
MFA No. 22841 of 2013
IN MFA.NO.22189/2013:
BETWEEN:
NORTH - WEST KARNATAKA ROAD,
TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.,
REPTD. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
SIRSI, KSRTC DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
HUBBALI ROAD, SIRSI,
CENTRAL OFFICER HUBBALLI,
CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBBALI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.M.KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S SESA GOVA LIMITED,
REGD. OFFICE SESA GHOR, EDC,
COMPLEX, PATTO, PANAJI,
NORTH GOA - 403 001.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
BAJAJ GENERAL ALLIANZ,
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
E.Z.PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD,
YARAVADA, PUNE - 411 006.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. K. KAYAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SIRSI IN MVC NO.133/2010
DATED 31.10.2012 AND ETC.,
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
MFA No. 23362 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 24018 of 2011
MFA No. 21686 of 2012
MFA No. 22147 of 2012
MFA No. 25492 of 2012
MFA No. 22189 of 2013
MFA No. 22841 of 2013
IN MFA.NO.22841/2013:
BETWEEN:
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
RAM COMPLEX, 29, PARAMATHI RAOD,
NAMAKKAL, HEREIN REPRESENTED
BY NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
MOTOR THIRD PARTY HUB OFFICE,
SRINATH COMPLEX,
2ND FLOOR, NEW COTTON MARKET,
HUBBALLI - 580 029,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI R.R.MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NORTH - WEST KARNATAKA ROAD,
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL
CONTROLLER, GADAG DIVISION,
GADAG - SHRI N.B.MRUTHYUNJAYAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: N.W.K.R.T.C. SERVICE,
R/O: GADAG.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
BAJAJ ALIYANZ, GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
E.Z.PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD,
YARAVADA, PUNE - 411 006.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N.S.KINI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 26.07.2012 PASSED BY THE COURT OF DISTRICT
JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GADAG, IN MVC
NO.42/2010 AND ETC.,
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
MFA No. 23362 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 24018 of 2011
MFA No. 21686 of 2012
MFA No. 22147 of 2012
MFA No. 25492 of 2012
MFA No. 22189 of 2013
MFA No. 22841 of 2013
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA No.23362/2012, MFA No.24018/2011 and MFA
No.22189/2013 are filed by the KSRTC challenging the
judgment and award passed by the tribunal questioning
not granting of compensation under the head "loss of
revenue".
2. MFA No.21686/2012, MFA No.22147/2012, MFA
No.25492/2012 and MFA No.22841/2013 are filed by the
respective insurance companies challenging the judgment
and award questioning grant of compensation under the
head "loss of revenue".
3. Common facts involved in these appeals are
that the KSRTC has preferred claim petitions before
respective tribunal and some of the tribunals have granted
compensation under the head "loss of revenue" and some
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
of the tribunals have declined to grant of compensation
towards "loss of revenue".
4. Therefore, the common question involved in
these appeals is that where bus belongs to
KSRTC/Transport business company meets with accident
and bus got damaged, by which, the trip of that bus is
cancelled and if another spare bus is assigned on that
schedule route then in such an event, whether
KSRTC/Transport business company are entitled for
compensation under the head idling charges because of
loss of revenue when the bus is in garage for repair.
5. The learned counsel for the KSRTC submitted
that due to the accident to bus, the bus is constrained to
get repair in the workshop and during such idle period
under the repair in the workshop, the bus cannot ply on
the scheduled route. Therefore, KSRTC is entitled for
compensation under the head "loss of revenue" since the
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
bus is in workshop for repair. Therefore, submitted that
how many days bus is in the garage, the bus cannot ply in
the schedule route, so far as the bus is concerned it's
schedule operation is cancelled. Therefore, it is amounting
to loss of revenue to the KSRTC because the KSRTC is
constrained to keep the bus idle in the work shop.
Therefore, prays to grant of compensation under the head
"idle charges/loss of revenue" according to the earning of
the income per trip by that particular bus.
6. The learned counsel for the KSRTC places
reliance on the following judgments:
1) In the case of Managing Director, KSRTC Vs. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd., in MFA No.4377/2001
dated 20.07.2006.
2) In the case of Senior Divisional Controller, KSRTC,
Mangalore Vs. Sri.Rahamatulla B.Nashipudi and
others, in MFA No.9718/2012 dated 10.06.2014.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
3) Karnataka State Road Transport Vs. Abdul Majeed
reported in ILR 1990 KAR 1493 dated 10.12.1989.
4) The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. The Managing Director NWKRTC,
Bagalkot in MFA No.20867/2008 dated 25.07.2014.
5) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Divisional
Controller, KSRTC, Mangalore in MFA No.2217/2011
dated 20.02.2017.
6) Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation(KSRTC) Vs. Siddaraju and another, in
MFA No.2366/2018 dated 01.09.2022.
7) Managing Director, BMTC, Shanthinagar Vs. Union of
India and another in MFA No.913/2013 dated
05.02.2020.
8) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore
Vs. North West Karnataka road transport
Corporation, Hubli and another in MFA
NO.8430/2003 dated 08.08.2006.
9) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. The Managing
Director, KSRTC, Bangalore in MFA NO.4784/2009
dated 16.08.2017.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing
for insurance company submitted that the KSRTC is not
entitled for compensation under the head "idle
charges/loss of revenue" for the reason that even though
the schedule bus assigned in the route meets with
accident but other spare buses are assigned in the said
route and therefore, the KSRTC will not lose revenue at
any cost in that route. Therefore, submitted that the
KSRTC is not entitled for compensation under the head
loss of revenue due to idle of bus in the garage.
8. Further argued with reference to Section 72 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") and
Rule 69(A) of the Karnataka Motor vehicle Rules 1989 (for
short "the Rule") and submitted that the intention of
legislature in Section 72 of MV Act and Rule 69(A) of Rule,
passengers shall not suffer inconvenience in canceling the
trip. Therefore, a compulsion is made on the transport
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
business company/KSRTC to keep spare buses according
to the number of permits applied by the KSRTC/Transport
business company. Therefore, there is no question of loss
of revenue since spare bus runs on the route. Therefore,
the KSRTC/Transport business company is able to earn
revenue from that route even though scheduled bus meets
with accident and kept in workshop for repair. Therefore,
submitted that KSRTC is not entitled for compensation
under the end loss of revenue as virtually there would not
be any loss of revenue by the KSRTC/Transport business
company.
9. The counsel for the insurance company places
reliance on the following judgments of this court:-
1. North West Karnataka Transport
Corporation, Hubli Vs. Pushpaja W/o Suhas
Prabhu and another in MFA No.22143/2009 dated
10.01.2014.
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
2. M/s Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rajasthan Vs. Karnataka Road transport ,
Bangalore in MFA No.2833/2012 dated
29.10.2022.
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Bangalore
vs. Senior Divisional Controller, Mangalore and
another and connected matters in MFA
No.6416/2014 c/w MFA No.4481/2014 dated
23.12.2020.
4. North West Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation Ltd., Hubbali Vs. Nagarajayya H.S.
and another in MFA No.20689/2013 dated
14.09.2021.
10. Upon hearing the submissions of respective
learned counsel appearing for KSRTC and insurance
company, the point that arise for my consideration is as
follows:
1) Whether under the facts and circumstances
involved in the case, where a bus attached with
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
KSRTC/Transport business company meets with
accident and got damaged and when the said bus
is caught in the work shop of the garage for repair
work for some days and when a spare bus is
assigned on the said route by the KSRTC/Transport
business company, then, in such an event KSRTC is
entitled for compensation under the head "idle
charges/loss of revenue?".
11. The Ruling placed by the learned counsel
appearing for the KSRTC are that this Court in many cases
inclined granting compensation under the head "loss of
revenue" since the bus was constrained to keep in the
garage workshop for repair. Therefore, in those
judgments, this court has granted compensation to the
KSRTC under the head loss of revenue to the bus as the
bus is constrained to keep in the garage/work shop for
repair.
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
12. In the judgments relied on by the KSRTC, the
grant of compensation under the head "loss of revenue" is
a mere opinion of the court by not laying down any law in
this regard without interpreting relevant statue.
13. In the Rulings relied on by the counsel for the
Insurance company, this court in those judgments
declined to grant compensation under the head "loss of
revenue / idling charges" is also an opinion formed by the
court. In the case of Pushpaja(supra), this court has
made interpretation of sub section (2) of Section 72 of
the Act and Rule 69(A) of the Rules and declined to grant
compensation under the head loss of revenue.
14. Here, the question is whether KSRTC/Transport
business companies have suffered loss of revenue where
scheduled bus on the route meets with accident and spare
bus is assigned on the scheduled route is to be considered.
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
Loss of revenue as contended by the KSRTC/Transport
Business Company is to be considered on two aspects.
1) Route specific revenue
2) Bus specific revenue
15. These two namely route specific revenue and
bus specific revenue are two different aspects which are
governing to decide the loss of revenue to the
KSRTC/Transport bus company.
16. Whether KSRTC/Transport Business Company is
actually has suffered loss of revenue is to be decided on
these two aspects.
17. The KSRTC/Transport Business Company will
earn revenue by operating buses on the schedule routes.
Therefore, whether the bus is earning revenue plying on
the schedule route is earning revenue because of the bus
is assigned to the said route and this earning of revenue is
route specific revenue or bus specific revenue is to be
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
considered. Where a spare bus is assigned on the reason
that the regular bus plying on the route got damaged in
the accident, whether this can be considered as loss of
revenue to the KSRTC/Transport Business Company.
Therefore, on these aspects the question of loss of
revenue/idling charges is to be considered on the
principles of route specific revenue and bus specific
revenue as above stated. This is to be appreciated with
relevant statutes.
18. Clause 17(xvii) of Sub-section 2 of Section 72
of MV Act stipulates as follows:-
"72. Grant of stage carriage permits (1) Subject to
the provisions of Section 71, a Regional Transport
Authority may, on an application made to it under
Section 70, grant a stage carriage permit in
accordance with the application or with such
modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such
a permit:
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
provided that no such permit shall be granted
in respect of any route or area not specified in the
application.
(2) The Regional Transport Authority, if it
decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant
the permit for a stage carriage of a specified
description and may, subject to any rules that may
be made under this Act, attach to the permit any
one or more of the following conditions, namely-
(1) to (xvi) - XXXX
(xvii) The vehicles to be kept as reserve by the
holder of the permit to maintain the operation and
to provide for special occasions;"
19. As per these provisions of law, it is mandatory
on the part of the transport business company to keep the
vehicles as reserve by the holder of permit to maintain the
operation in any contingent events that means, if a bus
meets with accident, then the reserved bus can be plied
on the said schedule route with an intention not to cause
inconvenience to the commuters/passengers of the bus.
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
As per the provision of law, while transport authority
issuing permit, it is empowered by this Act to impose the
conditions enumerated under Section 72 and one of the
condition is putting condition clause 17 as above stated.
The intention of legislature with its objects and reasons to
enact this provision is for the reason that if any Transport
Business Company is operating buses then, the said
Transport Business Company have to reserve vehicles by
the holder of permit for the purpose of maintaining
operations on the said route and to provide for special
occasions. What is special occasion means in case if a bus
meets with accident and by virtue of that operation of the
said bus is cancelled because of damage caused in the
accident, then KSRTC/Transport Business Company shall
assign reserve bus on the route in the interest of
commuters/passengers of the bus that the passengers
shall not suffer any inconvenience. Therefore, the
transport service by the KSRTC or by any other Transport
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
Business Company are semi-commercial and semi-service.
Providing service of buses on the routes is blending
between commercial purpose and service oriental object,
keeping in interest of the public. Taking service of
transportation by a citizen is fundamental right as per
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and thus,
corresponding duties assigned on the KSRTC/TBC to
provide bus on the assigned route without taking any
excuse that the bus met with the accident and trip is
cancelled. This excuse cannot be taken by the KSRTC/TBC
corporation/companies. Therefore, when this being the
intention of legislature while issuing permit to the
KSRTC/TBC to provide service to the public, then
necessarily and mandatorily, they have to maintain spare
buses/reserved buses to meet any contingent event.
Therefore, such condition is stipulated while issuing permit
to the KSRTC/TBC. Hence, considering this, the
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
KSRTC/TBC is earning revenue based on the "specific
route".
20. While issuing permit and stipulation of such
condition is to make operation on the said schedule route
hassle free without taking any excuse that the bus met
with accident and canceling trip, but the KSRTC/TBC has
to maintain operations on the schedule route keeping in
view the whole object of not putting the public at
inconvenient stage by canceling the trip. Therefore, what
the KSRTC/TBC are earning revenue is based on the
route specific revenue. When this being the fact,
whether the KSRTC/TBC are put to condition while issuing
permit by transport authorities, directing the KSRTC/TBC
to operate the reserve bus/spare bus on the said route,
therefore, the revenue generation is route specific
centric but not bus specific revenue earning. Therefore
Rule 69-A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
stipulates maximum number of reserve vehicles that can
be maintained according to the number of permits. Rule
69-A of the Rules stipulates as follows:
69-A. Maintenance of reserve
vehicles.-The conditions regarding
maintenance of reserved vehicles specified in
clause (xvii) of sub-section (2) of section 72 of
the Act, shall be incorporated in every permit
granted to a person and the maximum number
of reserve vehicles to be maintained with valid
permits for such use shall be as specified in the
table below:
Maximum number of
No. of permits reserve vehicles that
can be maintained
" 51 and above....... Not less than 10% of
the fleet Strength.]
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
21. This Rule 69-A of the Rules is in consonance
with section 72 of the M.V.Act. Section 72 empowers
power to the transport authorities to put conditions as
enumerated in section 72 of the Act keeping in view the
interest of public while providing transport services by the
KSRTC/TBC as it is a fundamental right provided by the
Constitution of India. When this being the legal position,
the object and reason for framing Rule 69-A is that
according to the number of permit being issued by the
transport authorities, number of reserve vehicles can be
maintained. Maintaining reserve vehicles is not for revenue
generation by the vehicles but to provide hassle free
transport service to the public. Therefore, when this being
the legal position, if any bus of the KSRTC/TBC meets with
accident and operation of the said bus is cancelled, but to
assign reserve bus/spare bus on the said schedule route,
hence in this regard there would not be any loss of
revenue to the KSRTC and TBC. But as above stated
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
earlier, the revenue generation by the KSRTC/TBC is a
route specific revenue but not bus specific revenue. Hence,
when it is obligatory on the part of the KSRTC/TBC to
assign spare bus/reserve bus on the route in case of a
scheduled bus is damaged, there could not be loss of
revenue by not operating the schedule route. Therefore, if
a bus meets with accident and got damaged and is kept in
the garage for repair, for that the KSRTC/TBC are entitled
for compensation on other heads as per law, but not
entitled for loss of revenue.
22. This can be illustrated by quoting an example.
If a person is operating two buses daily from the place A
to B and B to A and one bus meets with accident,
inevitably the route of that bus is cancelled, then in such
an event the owner of bus/vehicles is suffering loss of
revenue because he is not able to maintain spare
bus/reserve bus because he has only two busses. But in
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
the case of KSRTC/TBC where they are operating many
hundred number of buses and obtaining permits from the
transport authorities and there it is obligatory on the part
of them according to the permit issued, they have to
maintain reserve bus/spare bus and in any contingent
event as discussed above they have to operate spare
bus/reserve bus; under such an event there would not be
any loss of revenue; because reserve bus is operating on
the same route. This is the difference between two aspects
route specific revenue and bus specific revenue.
23. Hence for the reasons above discussed, when in
these appeals where it is evident that reserve buses were
operated on the route, when the bus meets with accident,
then it could not be said that there is loss of revenue
because of the cancelled bus and reserve bus is placed
and made to operate on the said route; therefore under
these factual matrix and circumstances involved in these
- 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
appeals, the KSRTC/TBC are not entitled for compensation
to that loss of revenue/idling charges.
24. In the decisions placed by the KSRTC that this
Court has granted compensation to the loss of
revenue/idling charges are mere opinion of the Court.
Likewise, this Court has declined to grant compensation
towards loss of revenue and idling charges is also mere
opinion. No specific reasons are assigned with statute
except in the Pushpaja case(supra).
25. Therefore accordingly the question of law raised
is answered in the negative by holding that the
KSRTC/TBC are not entitled for compensation under the
head loss of revenue/idling charges. Therefore in the
appeals filed by the insurance company grant of
compensation towards loss of revenue/idling charges is set
aside by maintaining the award on other heads. Therefore
the appeals filed by the insurance company are liable to be
- 28 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
allowed in part. The appeals filed by the KSRTC are liable
to be dismissed.
26. In all the cases the compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till realization.
27. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeals in MFA No.23362/2012,
MFA No.24018/2011 and MFA No.22189/2013
filed by the KSRTC are dismissed.
ii) The appeals in MFA No.21686/2012,
MFA No.22147/2012, MFA No.25492/2012 and
MFA No.22841/2013 filed by the respective
insurance companies are allowed in part.
iii) In the appeals filed by the insurance
company, grant of compensation towards loss
of revenue/idling charges is set aside by
maintaining the award on other heads.
- 29 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14257
iv) In all the cases the compensation
amount shall carry interest at the rate of
6% p.a. from the date of petition till
realization.
v) The amount in deposit in all these
appeals shall be transmitted to the tribunal.
vi) Excess amount in deposit, if any,
shall be refunded to the appellants-insurance
companies.
vii) No order as to costs.
viii) Draw award accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE
HMB- Up to para 18
SSP- para 19 to 19
MRK-para 20 to end
CT-ASC
